|
Nessus posted:Well go file an amicus curae brief with the Vermont Republican Party then, I'm sure you'd be rewarded handsomely. For example: when you're suffering from a difficult illness, quitting your job for a few months to move to Vermont is not, in fact, a realistic solution. Additionally, plenty of chronic illnesses (ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.) do not actually "go away" and require monthly treatments and constant medication, meaning you'd have to move to Vermont forever. This is the "If they don't like the bigoted homophobia of their state, why don't they just move?" argument transported to healthcare, with the bizarre twist that this time it's posited as a bad thing.
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe Fat Ogre's inquiry is, what keeps someone from moving there briefly and applying for welfare, which they may not be lawfully denied based on their status of residency? And I think my answer is that uprooting one's entire life to temporarily obtain Vermont residency is not a realistic solution for almost anyone in a position where they're lacking adequate healthcare; it is a self-correcting "problem."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
enbot posted:
It really is, though, because both of these arguments assume that people are capable of interstate moving without any real difficulty. In this instance, we'd have assume someone would be able to move as soon as they need treatment, and do it fairly swiftly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
This is impractical thinking. Never mind the generic "the humanities is a waste of a degree  " thinking, if someone is skilled in chemistry and is one year away from getting their Ph.D (at which point they stand a good chance of more than making up for the 5 years of difficult wages), but they suddenly find themselves unable to work because, say, the Remicade treatments for UC aren't covered by their insurance and the illness is taking them out of the lab too often, it's not that they're acting impractical. It's that the laws of their state related to healthcare companies and employment are not doing their job. We're not even talking about somebody unemployed or someone who made "unwise choices" here, this is a person at the entry level part of their careers who is therefore not flush with a savings account that can weather emergencies. It's a hallmark for what private insurance should be doing, even from a conservative mindset.You're essentially saying that anyone working in the sciences chose an impractical life.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I think what he's saying is that anyone who works chose an impractical life. More accurately, that anyone who doesn't begin their careers having already somehow acquired a mortgage worth of assets to cover them in the event of getting sick is leading an impractical life.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
You don't tenure to make a decent living from having a Ph.D., but then, that isn't the point. Someone who is flat-out working retail to pay their way through a finance degree en route to an MBA is still "rolling the dice" and "gambling on not getting sick." Unless you are already very flush with assets, you are doing this in any career.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
This is a complete tangent, but the reason is because the population at large is still unskilled at replacing parts within a computer, particularly as the laptop market increases and data recovery and other repairs becomes more of a market for people who drop the damned things. There's also still an enormous population that wants to buy "a computer" and does not understand that a computer is, in fact, a collection of hardware parts. And they want the benefits of one "computer" over another explained to them by a "skilled employee." The larger point still remains that unemployment in general and not in specific fields is a problem right now, and there is little evidence for your point that companies used the market crash as an excuse to cut "dead weight." For profit education, for example, is and remains a lucrative market for a wide berth of generic bachelors degree graduates (most of the jobs are essentially sales), despite some federal intervention and some bad press that caught people up on the bad actors, but there have been massive layoffs in the sector because the market of people who could afford the tuition has decreased dramatically.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Please look at these quotes and see how you have, in fact, said, within the response, the thing that you are so angry someone has accused you of saying. I have cut out portions to make it more obvious.Fat Ogre posted:Look at you saying I think that it should be reserved to only those with money. Again with the straw man. That you have proposed reforms is irrelevant, as you are still accusing people of being irresponsible "under the current system." It's rather incredible that you can smugly deny saying something while saying it in the very same breath.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:The market collapsed in 2008 with warnings all over the place the market was going to implode. "I'm really mad that you would say I claimed these choices are irresponsible! What a strawman!" "These choices are irresponsible, plain and simple." Perhaps you can at least cop to the fact, then, that you believe the only people capable of achieving doctorates without being "irresponsible" and "uninformed" are the wealthy, who can afford to weather to the five to seven years of low wages training (which is what graduate school is for any field). Once you have admitted to the fact, it will be easier to converse with you about without your exploding into accusing people of the first logical fallacy you were able to find on wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:In 2000 I decided I didn't want to keep taking CS classes at UIUC (a very good public college) because too many people were in CS/CE and the dotcom bubble showed it was a long term bad idea. Then I decided to go to law school in 2005 because of family connections + it seemed like that was a field that would keep hiring at better rates than elsewhere. Then 2008 happened, after I graduated. The answer to this he has given so far seems to be that it is a systemic problem which requires an overhaul of our education system, although I have some difficulty squaring this response with later assertions that certain fields of study are "irresponsible or uninformed, plain and simple."
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
The funniest thing about this entire discussion is that major universities (and small colleges!) are actually quite adept at tracking gainful employment through their career services offices and the Obama administration (using BLS data, if I'm not mistaken), actually sought to make colleges more accountable for the numbers, where they were fought tooth and nail by representatives whose pockets were lined by the larger for profits like CEC, EMDC et alia. Not surprisingly, the bad actors were increasingly not the colleges and universities that offer those dreaded archaeology or veterinary zoology degrees, but the so-called trade schools that offer expensive "diplomas" or even bachelors degrees in a host of medical tech things that, even if you do land a job because of them, are completely incapable of paying back the loans. This is to say nothing of the earlier linked statistics regarding obtaining a bachelors degree in general and how they seem at odds with the central premise of Fat Ogre's general conceit, or the privilege implied in the idea that people should somehow be capable of working a full-time job while participating in a full time graduate program (in perfectly reasonable fields like chemistry, just to avoid the basketweaving talking point).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Of course! That's what the economy has been missing, what would provide every graduate with healthcare! The real secret to universal healthcare and living wages, as provided by Fat Ogre: elbow grease and pounding the pavement with resumes. Would that our leaders had thought of this strategy sooner.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:
You just replied to somebody with an anecdote about difficulty finding work with what amounts to "Maybe you should to out and seek some work? Just a thought." Sure, it's at odds with your other posts which blame people for irresponsibly choosing a field of study that requires them to work for low wages for long periods and sure, that contradicts your assertion that you're not saying people of wealth should be the only ones worthy of degrees, but we can only pick one bad viewpoint to respond to here, I just decided to focus on the latest.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If your choice is not working and saying pity me or creating work, what have you got to lose at that point? Your mistake is in assuming that the second option is at all realistic (but thank you for once again admitting to holding a viewpoint you just now disavowed as being a strawman - it's good that you are consistent about something).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:07
|
|